Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$F:\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page\District Judges ...$



$\\orion\ChildSupport\Kevin\2007 Case Lists\Currently on web page ...$

Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody In order to file with <strong>Nebraska</strong>’s Biological Father Registry, a Notice of Objection to Adoption and Intent to Obtain Custody form is required. It indicates a father’s intention to seek custody of the child within thirty (30) days of the filing. D.E.M. V. P.A.M., 218 Neb. 319, 352 N.W.2d 916 (1984) [T]he satisfactions and discharges of accrued child support obligations, or the termination of future responsibility for the same, do not constitute an unwarranted payment of consideration which will vitiate a child relinquishment (for adoption). Gomez v. Savage ; 254 Neb. 836, 580 N.W.2d 523 (1998) (Discusses difference between agency related adoptions and private adoptions, as pertains to relinquishment of parental rights) A relinquishment of parental rights, given voluntarily, is not revocable. The Legislature, as well as this court, has long recognized a distinction between agency adoptions and private adoptions. In the case of an agency adoption, the relinquishing parent surrenders all rights to the child in favor of the state or a licensed child placement agency. Yopp v. Batt, supra. This court has treated an adoption as an agency adoption when a natural parent personally chose the adoptive parents with the help of an agency. See Kellie v. Lutheran Family & Social Service, 208 Neb. 767, 305 N.W.2d 874 (1981). Under §43-106.01, the rights of the relinquishing parent are terminated when the agency accepts responsibility for the child in writing. It is the agency that finds and investigates the prospective parents. If the adoptive parents are unsuitable or decline to go through with the adoption, the agency retains custody over the child until such time as the child is adopted by another family. In private adoptions, by contrast, under §43-111, the relinquishing parent’s rights are not totally extinguished until the child has been formally adopted by the prospective parents. In re Adoption of Corbin J., 278 Neb. 1057, 775 N.W.2d 404 (2009) Holding: A temporary order for child support does not adjudicate paternity. [The] consent of the father of a child born out of wedlock who has been adjudicated to be the father by a court is required for an adoption to proceed unless the <strong>Nebraska</strong> court having jurisdiction over the custody of the child determines otherwise pursuant to § 43-104.22. See § 43-104.01(7). An adjudicated father is an individual determined to be the father by a court of competent jurisdiction. The only court order entered addressing [the father’s] paternity was a temporary order in the district court …requiring [the father] to pay child support and to provide medical insurance and designating visitation. This temporary order was not a final court-ordered determination that [the biological father] was [the child’s] father. - 6 -
See Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 103 S. Ct. 2985, 77 L. Ed. 2d 614 (1983), regarding the constitutionally protected rights of unwed fathers under the 14 th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. “the Court draws a distinction between unmarried biological fathers who have developed a relationship with their child and fathers without such a relationship.” – citing Heart of Adoptions, Inc. v. J.A., 963 So. 2d 189, 204 (Fla. 2007) We conclude that for an adoption to proceed, the consent of the biological father who has established a familial relationship with his child is required unless, under § 43-104(2), the party seeking adoption has established that the biological parent: (2) has relinquished the child for adoption by a written instrument, (b) has abandoned the child for at least six months next preceding the filing of the adoption petition, (c) has been deprived of his or her parental rights to such child by the order of any court of competent jurisdiction, or (d) is incapable of consenting. Smith v. Smith, 201 Neb. 21, 265 N.W.2d 855 (1978) Mother who secures consent to adoption from father cannot later seek child support from the biological father after she does not go through with the adoption. The securing of the consent of the father to an adoption by another of his child is such action which by its nature should terminate further liability for child support. But see… Williams v. Williams, 206 Neb. 630, 294 N.W.2d 357 (1980) We do not believe that the mere execution of a document consenting to the adoption of a child, standing alone, is sufficient to justify imposing the doctrine of equitable estoppel and denying to a parent with custody of a child the benefits of a previously entered order of a court. To the extent that our holding in Smith v. Smith, is to the contrary, it is modified. In Re Adoption of David C., 280 Neb. 719, 790 N.W.2d 205 (October 2010) The issue of abandonment in an adoption pro eding must be established by clear and convincing evidence. The question of abandonment is largely one of intent to be determined in each case from all the facts and circumstances. “Willful abandonment has been defined as ‘a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of the custody of the child to another, with the intent to never again claim the rights of a parent or perform the duty of a parent; or, second, an intentional withholding from the child, without just cause or excuse, by the parent, of his presence, his care, his love and his protection, maintenance, and the opportunity for the display of filial affection . . . .’. . .” In re Application of S.R.S. and M.B.S., 225 Neb. 759, 765, 408 N.W.2d 272, 276 (1987), quoting In re Adoption of Simonton, 211 Neb. 777, 320 N.W.2d 449 (1982). The parental obligation “requires continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain communication and association with that child. Abandonment is not an ambulatory thing the legal effects of which a parent may dissipate at will by token efforts at reclaiming a discarded child.” – citing In re Adoption of Simonton, supra. See § 43-104.22. The effect of a finding of abandonment is that the putative biological father has no further standing to raise objections in the matter of the adoption. - 7 -
Page 1 and 2: Have a Wonderful Summer! Child Supp
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents:* * (accessible v
Page 5 and 6: Table of Contents (continued): Mult
Page 7 and 8: A Note for Legal Practitioners: Mem
Page 9 and 10: Overview/ IV-D Attorney Duty Gangwi
Page 11: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 7-105(2) (Reissu
Page 15 and 16: their attorney of record and, excep
Page 17 and 18: State ex rel. Lemon v. Gale, 272 Ne
Page 19 and 20: disobedience as an essential elemen
Page 21 and 22: student loan that the noncustodial
Page 23 and 24: having jurisdiction to compel the s
Page 25 and 26: Drew on Behalf of Reed v. Reed, 16
Page 27 and 28: income, is to be considered in dete
Page 29 and 30: § 48-802 - Statutes, General Rules
Page 31 and 32: from arriving on the scene, either
Page 33 and 34: In equity cases trial judges should
Page 35 and 36: Similarly, a party who does more th
Page 37 and 38: Common Law Marriages States that au
Page 39 and 40: Constitutional Issues/ Statutory In
Page 41 and 42: Little v. Streater, 452 U.S. 1, 101
Page 43 and 44: In re Interest of Thomas M., 282 Ne
Page 45 and 46: See Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kre
Page 47 and 48: Because a conditional commitment is
Page 49 and 50: obligation when he currently has an
Page 51 and 52: An order modifying child custody wh
Page 53 and 54: Haynes v. Haynes, 205 Neb. 35, 286
Page 55 and 56: Stuhr v. Stuhr, 240 Neb. 239, 481 N
Page 57 and 58: By failing to take the genetic test
Page 59 and 60: State on behalf of L.L.B. v. Hill,
Page 61 and 62: Due Process Conn v. Conn, 13 Neb. A
Page 63 and 64:
or court order of emancipation or a
Page 65 and 66:
Henderson v. Henderson, 264 Neb. 91
Page 67 and 68:
they have income. There is no floor
Page 69 and 70:
Lainson v. Lainson, 219 Neb. 170, 3
Page 71 and 72:
Millatmal v. Millatmal, 272 Neb. 45
Page 73 and 74:
24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separat
Page 75 and 76:
[T]he fact that [the custodial pare
Page 77 and 78:
The same principles that apply with
Page 79 and 80:
“[C]oncerns regarding the stigma
Page 81 and 82:
(a) The interpretation of the suppo
Page 83 and 84:
make the appointment. In other case
Page 85 and 86:
Guidelines Issues (Including suffic
Page 87 and 88:
Note: In July 2008 the Federal Chil
Page 89 and 90:
Erica J. v. Dewitt, 265 Neb. 728, 6
Page 91 and 92:
Morrill County v. Darsaklis, 7 Neb.
Page 93 and 94:
Any deviation from the guidelines m
Page 95 and 96:
to also pay reimbursement for reaso
Page 97 and 98:
or law of another state substantial
Page 99 and 100:
§43-1711 Income, defined. Income s
Page 101 and 102:
Simpson v. Simpson, 275 Neb. 152, 7
Page 103 and 104:
§42-364.09. Child support; withhol
Page 105 and 106:
§43-1709. Employer or other payor,
Page 107 and 108:
(6) That the employer or other payo
Page 109 and 110:
income withholding for current supp
Page 111 and 112:
Title IV-D Division of the Departme
Page 113 and 114:
Held: The state was acting beyond i
Page 115 and 116:
(3) Any juvenile…whose parent, gu
Page 117 and 118:
proceeding or a new action. Since t
Page 119 and 120:
State, Dept. of Social Services v.
Page 121 and 122:
amount equal to the support due and
Page 123 and 124:
Source: Laws 1975, LB 212, § 8; La
Page 125 and 126:
The second is used in aid of an exe
Page 127 and 128:
Halsted v. Halsted, 169 Neb. 325, 9
Page 129 and 130:
Neb. Ct. R. § 4-217 Modification.
Page 131 and 132:
she had sufficient resources to pro
Page 133 and 134:
If applicable, earning capacity may
Page 135 and 136:
Gress v. Gress, 274 Neb. 686, 743 N
Page 137 and 138:
A district court may modify a regis
Page 139 and 140:
Peter v. Peter, 262 Neb. 1017, 637
Page 141 and 142:
See also: Wilkins v. Wilkins, 269 N
Page 143 and 144:
Under certain circumstances, an ame
Page 145 and 146:
A party seeking to modify a dissolu
Page 147 and 148:
(2)The department, through its agen
Page 149 and 150:
§ 43-1408.01 Notarized acknowledgm
Page 151 and 152:
§43-1414. Genetic testing; procedu
Page 153 and 154:
Carlson v. Bartels, 143 Neb. 680, 1
Page 155 and 156:
as to the paternity of the minor ch
Page 157 and 158:
Jones v. Paulson, 261 Neb. 327, 622
Page 159 and 160:
in loco parentis to the child. See,
Page 161 and 162:
(b) If the court orders income with
Page 163 and 164:
enforcement, for example, we are fo
Page 165 and 166:
ights of visitation. Later mother c
Page 167 and 168:
Matchett v. Dunkle, 244 Neb. 639, 5
Page 169 and 170:
Connecticut, the District of Columb
Page 171 and 172:
In order to stand in loco parentis,
Page 173 and 174:
Of particular interest is the requi
Page 175 and 176:
Social Security (Also see Equity, E
Page 177 and 178:
Calculate support this way: 1. Mom
Page 179 and 180:
Spousal support, when used in the c
Page 181 and 182:
punishment for sexual assault in th
Page 183 and 184:
Hall v. Hall, 238 Neb. 686, 472 N.W
Page 185 and 186:
interests of a child are served by
Page 187 and 188:
§42-722. Private counsel. An indiv
Page 189 and 190:
the following three conditions are
Page 191 and 192:
Source: Laws 1993, LB 500, § 43 §
Page 193 and 194:
Despite a basic difference in the n
Page 195 and 196:
Conrad v. Conrad, 208 Neb. 588, 304
Page 197 and 198:
Mace v. Mace, 13 Neb. App. 896, 703
Page 199 and 200:
In re Interest of Chance J., 279 Ne
Page 201 and 202:
per hour, two hour minimum. C. (1)
Page 203 and 204:
(3) If, regardless of whether payme
Page 205 and 206:
Rule 21 adopted April 16, 2008. Ren
Page 207 and 208:
Nebraska Information System (NIS):
Page 209 and 210:
web site: www.usmc-mccs.org/contact
Page 211 and 212:
FIPS FPLS IRG IV-D JUSTICE MSFIDM N
show all

Child Support Enforcement - Sarpy County Nebraska

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?